American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Do you think that maybe they were mocking a jobs summit and instead talking about lower taxes because they think (supposedly) that government doesn't create jobs, but lowering taxes and giving companies a break from spending their money on government might give them a chance to hire some people back, thereby actually recovering (even though not creating) jobs?

Again, it's the meme of the government can fix things versus the supposed free market can do a better job.

There can be no real intelligent discussion on this as long as we count an intelligent discussion as something where both sides bring information to the table, exchange it back and forth, and we actually all come away with some changes in our thinking as a result.

Without those sort of results (to a lesser or greater degree) there is no intelligent discussion, merely discussion between intelligent individuals which might be considered a form of mental masturbation.

I've heard the arguments about wasteful government before. I agree there are many examples that demonstrate this. However I don't believe that government is de-facto, inherently wasteful. It all depends on how its run.

I've heard the arguments about efficient private enterprise before. I agree there are many examples that demonstrate this. However I'm also aware there are important needs that the private sector cannot, or has not, addressed in a fair and effective manner.

So in trying to address important needs, I do not start with the position that the government should not play a role. What's important is that the needs are addressed in a fair and effective manner. If the private sector can't do so then other options should be considered.

As El Queso has pointed out, e mails from the nazi, neo-com global warming fanatics have shown that these thugs have stooped to cooking the books, throwing out data and destroying the peer review publication process in their attempt to force the ridiculous idea of man made global warming down our throats.

Now the imbecilic United Nations enforcer of global warming says that the peer review system guarantees publication of valid science. What a much of bullshit. The Nazi, neo-com enforcers of man made global warming emphaized in their emails that eliminating reviewers not sympathic to man made global warming was of utmost importance.

Why are these people so determined to ram this bullshit down our throats. The anwer is simple. Greed. Environmentalits have never seen so much grant money and as long a they hold their noses and pretend to accept the nonsense of man made global warming - grant money will appear.

As for Al Gore. That fucking bastard has the social conscience of the crooks in China who sold tainted milk causing hundreds of infant deaths. Gore is the poster boy for out of control greed. He makes Halburton and the other whipping boys of the fucking liberals look like Mother Teresa.

What is Al Gore's favorite Green project. Green in his pocket.

P.S. the global warmin fanatics, who used to have fairy tales about temperature increases of several degrees Centigrade, have now tried to draw a line in the sand. They claim that over the last 150 years, while we were coming out of a little Ice Age, the world's temperature has risen 0.8 degrees Centigrade.

Whoops, that was before they admitted that even 0.8 degrees Centigrade was a completely fabricated number with absolutely no basis in science.

[QUOTE=Esten]I've heard the arguments about wasteful government before. I agree there are many examples that demonstrate this. However I don't believe that government is de-facto, inherently wasteful. It all depends on how its run.

I've heard the arguments about efficient private enterprise before. I agree there are many examples that demonstrate this. However I'm also aware there are important needs that the private sector cannot, or has not, addressed in a fair and effective manner.

So in trying to address important needs, I do not start with the position that the government should not play a role. What's important is that the needs are addressed in a fair and effective manner. If the private sector can't do so then other options should be considered.[/QUOTE][Commence Rant] One of the larger differences between the public and private sector is that the laws of supply and demand apply directly to private enterprise but not to governments. It's sort of like Darwinian economics at play.

Businesses must compete directly against other businesses. Those that are more efficient in greater business aspects -- cost control, sales, innovation, etc. -- tend to survive and thrive. Those that are less efficient tend to fail. Survival of the fittest. I know that sounds simple, but it definitely applies to most businesses. There are exceptions, and there are different rules at play when large enterprises are competing against small enterprises. But, these are the unwritten rules that everyone in business understands, even if they aren't always good at any of these business fundamentals.

Governments, by contrast, need not play by these rules. States compete against other states for employers only at the margins, just as cities don't really compete much with other cities. The federal government really doesn't compete against anyone directly. For this reason, governments tend to be inefficient. Why? Because they don't have to be efficient.

Why would anyone trust anything the government has to say about job creation? What do politicians and bureaucrats know about this? Virtually nothing. If they did, they would be in the private sector creating jobs and running businesses. Those who can, do. Those who can't, run for office or seek public sector work where the laws of supply and demand are suspended.

As but one example, take a look at public sector employees in California. The unions full of public sector employees negotiate with politicians and bureaucrats over salaries, cost of living increases, pensions and health care. In reality, there is no real negotiation, as evidenced by the amount of pensions many of these folks leave the system with after 20-25 years of work. It is truly appalling, but it goes on and on until the state goes bankrupt. But for the fact that California is constitutionally prevented from filing for bankruptcy, it would already have done so. The state is truly messed up, and the majority of the cause are the set-asides allocated to public employees and a failing school system. The notion that anyone involved in this train wreck in California over the past 30 years has the faintest notion of how to run a business borders on the absurd. Is the federal government any better? Hardly. The only difference is that those rogues can print money and raise taxes with near impunity.

The health care mess is just the latest impending debacle. I'm too cynical to believe that the vast majority of Democratic politicians think they will really be doing anything that benefits anyone. Instead, they want to create a new entitlement constituency that they can count on in future elections, even if it does bankrupt the country. Likewise, I don't believe in any Republican do-gooders on this issue. They're not trying to prevent financial collapse. They just don't want to see the Democrats succeed in creating a new dependency that votes largely Democrat.

At base, the questions I ask are these:

1. When have taxes ever really gone down? There may have been blips here and there over the past 90 years, but the answer is "Never."

2. Have higher taxes really helped anything? Are roads better? Are schools better? Are social services more effective? Are we a more competitive country, overall? Does the postal system work better? How about medicare, medicaid and social security?

Will cap and trade help? Will health care "reform" help? Perhaps to some, the answers are not so obvious. For me, there is no doubt. Reagan had it right: Government [u]is[/u] the problem.[/ End Rant]

Stan, very elegantly stated.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Plus a lotta bullshit! Is this a CHANGE he promised? Oh well, ''he is a really smart guy''! It must be a ''smart'' idea! --------Synical Sid[/QUOTE]Actually, this is one of the changes he promised. He's been pretty consistent all along that the focus needs to be on Afghanistan -- from the campaign trail to now. There's nothing inconsistent with what he outlined last night. You may disagree with it, but this is exactly the change he promised.

I hope Obama has finally realized that job creation will occur in the private sector. Government does not create one new sustainable job by throwing money at sidewalk repair, mowing lawns or collecting garbage.

Jobs, real jobs, are the domain of the private sector. For crying out loud, reduce taxes on individuals and businesses so that businesses do not have to lay off workers and consumers have disposible income.

Somebody tatoo on Obama's forehead - GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM

At the same time we can send Pelosi, fucking Barney Franks and the idiot Reid from Nevada on a 50 year factfinding mission somewhere in the depths of the Amazon - wearing only Speedos.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]I hope Obama has finally realized that job creation will occur in the private sector. Government does not create one new sustainable job by throwing money at sidewalk repair, mowing lawns or collecting garbage.

Jobs, real jobs, are the domain of the private sector. For crying out loud, reduce taxes on individuals and businesses so that businesses do not have to lay off workers and consumers have disposible income.

Somebody tatoo on Obama's forehead - GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.

At the same time we can send Pelosi, fucking Barney Franks and the idiot Reid from Nevada on a 50 year factfinding mission somewhere in the depths of the Amazon.[/QUOTE]Of course he knows the importance of the private sector; to suggest otherwise is absurd. The stimulus package was designed as a temporary measure, with multiple objectives.

As I recall, it was government that stepped in to stabilize the financial crisis, avoiding a significantly more dire scenario.

Very likely, the administration's engagement of the private sector on the jobs issue is going to lead to some creative and effective initiatives. And there is the 'team' element I mentioned before. The train has arrived and soon people will realize they have an opportunity to get on board. Then some people will get on board, followed by others. Momentum will pick up. At some point, many will determine the risks of not getting on board outweigh the risks of doing so. This will be the major topic of 2010 and we will see the goverment playing a key role in facilitating the process.

I see the GOP thought the jobs summit was such a good idea, they had one themselves. Accompanied by the usual partisan attacks and efforts to seize on any angle they can to portray the administration's efforts in a negative light. How pathetic. Now is the time to be working together, not attacking.

[QUOTE=Esten]Now is the time to be working together, not attacking.[/QUOTE]Then why didn't Obama invite the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, or the National Association of Manufacturers to attend the "Jobs Summit"?

Failing to invite the three largest business organizations in the country to a "Jobs Summit" is like failing to invite the NFL to a "Football Summit".

Thanks,

Jackson

Did you hear that analogy on FOX? I did. If you want to play that analogy then I would say they invited the team owners not the NFL commissioner.

According to one report, this was not out of line with the administration's established approach — speaking directly with top CEOs instead.

Let's wait and see how things develop and what involvement such organizations may or may not eventually have, before rushing to judgement.

[QUOTE=Esten]According to one report, this was not out of line with the administration's established approach — speaking directly with top CEOs instead.[/QUOTE]That only illustrates my point: The Obama administration mistakenly believes that it's more productive to talk about job creation with the top CEOs of a small number of huge, bailout prone corporations instead of talking with the owners of 1.7 million small and medium size business who in fact actually create 70% of all the jobs in the country.

[QUOTE=Esten]The stimulus package was designed as a temporary measure, with multiple objectives.[/quote]The so-called "stimulus package" would have been more accurately titled as "The Government Employee Job Security Act", which allowed state governors and city mayors to avoid making politically difficult decisions about their own government payrolls, but which unfortunately did nothing to stimulate private sector economic growth.

[size=3][I]Obama: the [strike]dumbest[/strike] most inexperienced President ever![/i][/size]

Thanks,

Jackson

==============================================

For the record, I am [u]NOT[/u] a Rebublican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] a conservative.

- I am [u]against[/u] the death penalty.
- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] government support of religious organizations.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am [u]for[/u] a woman's right to choose.
- I am [u]for[/u] comprehensive sex education.
- I am [u]for[/u] a foreign guest worker program.
- I am [u]for[/u] a universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] income.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]INSURANCE[/u] reform.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]JUSTICE[/u] reform.

I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Then why didn't Obama invite the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, or the National Association of Manufacturers to attend the "Jobs Summit"?

Failing to invite the three largest business organizations in the country to a "Jobs Summit" is like failing to invite the NFL to a "Football Summit".

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Do not think it can be said the US Chamber of Commerce has been ignored or shut out. Sounds as though their President (Donohue) has worn his welcome out and would not of had anything new to offer at the jobs summit.

"One of the most frequent visitors [to the White House] was U. S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue"

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/25/AR2009112503772.html[/url]